Bruns v. The City of Centrailia, Illinois
2013 IL App (5th) 130094
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff (age 80) tripped on a sidewalk panel raised ~3 inches by tree roots while approaching the front entrance of an eye clinic for an appointment.
- The cracked/heaved panel was in the normal path to the clinic; plaintiff was looking toward the clinic entrance/steps (not down) when she stubbed her foot and fell, injuring her shoulder and arm.
- The clinic had previously notified the City of the hazardous sidewalk, offered to remove the tree at its expense, and reported at least one prior trip incident; a City tree committee declined removal for historic reasons.
- The City’s public works foreman acknowledged the condition was hazardous and that the City has a duty to keep sidewalks in repair.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the City, holding the defect was open and obvious as a matter of law and the distraction exception did not apply; the appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City owed a duty despite an open-and-obvious sidewalk defect | Bruns: open-and-obvious status is not dispositive; City had notice and foreseeable risk so a duty exists | City: open and obvious danger negates duty; distraction exception inapplicable here | Reversed: duty question remains where foreseeability of distraction exists and City knew of the hazard; jury issue |
| Whether the "distraction" exception to open-and-obvious applies when the defendant did not create the distraction | Bruns: distraction exception turns on foreseeability that invitees may be distracted (e.g., looking toward entrance), not on defendant creating the distraction | City: exception requires defendant to have created/contributed to the distraction | Reversed: courts need only find it foreseeable pedestrians would be distracted; defendant need not have caused the distraction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (establishes duty/ open-and-obvious analysis)
- Rexroad v. City of Springfield, 207 Ill. 2d 33 (distraction exception applies without defendant causing distraction)
- Clifford v. Wharton Business Group, L.L.C., 353 Ill. App. 3d 34 (explains foreseeability focus for distraction exception)
- Harris v. Old Kent Bank, 315 Ill. App. 3d 894 (location/use of defect relevant; patrons may be distracted exiting premises)
- Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill. 2d 435 (open-and-obvious danger generally relieves landowner of duty)
- Sandoval v. City of Chicago, 357 Ill. App. 3d 1023 (definition of open-and-obvious and related standards)